• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food-stamp use doubles

The average amount of time someone stays on food stamps is about 9 months. Maybe a little longer now, given economic conditions from the past few years.

Welfare reform in '96 (passed by Clinton) essentially ended "chronic" welfare and replaced it with TANF. You get a maximum of 60 months in your lifetime in most states. After 2 years, recipients are required to work ("workfare") in order to continue receiving assistance.

TANF benefit are also around half as much as welfare benefits in the 1970s.

Social Security Disability is indefinite, but doesn't pay much and is difficult to get.



No, you couldn't.

The cost of the purchases would be immense, as would maintenance and upkeep. It would distort the market, far more than subsidized housing for people with low incomes. It would lock the individuals into those homes, far more than being limited to affording subsidized housing.



We actually pretty much did that in 1996. And here we are, less than 20 years later, hearing the same complaints.

In addition, it was only a few years ago -- with the same exact benefits and safety nets as we currently have -- that unemployment was at or near record lows. What's changed since 2007? The benefits haven't gotten more generous, their motivating power hasn't changed, people still want to work. What's different is that companies just aren't hiring.

Any program or solution to any social program can be improved. However, tossing an entire system overboard that already has limited benefit durations, relatively small payouts, and shows little sign of discouraging people from finding work -- offers minimal benefit.

There are multiple welfare programs people work like a champ. SSI is the final solution and no it is not that hard to get on mental disability. That you think a system can be designed for all times without adapting to a changing society speaks volumes to why the whole thing should be rethought.
 
I have no problem with welfare for those is crisis---it just has become an chronic condition that traps too many people in the long run. Hell we could have bought houses with land and given it to a lot of recipients more cheaply than paying for housing for them for generations. We need to throw the whole system out and start over.

yes, but an educated person would know HUD is much different from the DHS or DSS department. There are alot of different types of social assistance programs. SNAP is not TANF which is not Section 8 housing, which is not disability or social security, and none of those are things like tuition assistance or corporate welfare. I don't mind the idea of increasing the efficiency of social welfare programs, and cutting otu abuses. however, to get an accurate idea of how to do that you have to be educated on what systems are out there and how they work. part of the problem with the welfare discussion in america is that there is more misinformation in it than there is about drugs. That is a deliberate thing created by both dems and republicans for different reasons. SNAp is relatively easy to get if you fall below the right income levels. It also does not give out cash benefits, and is limited per person to a max of 2400 a year in food. if you are working for less than 20k a year that is important. If you are going to discuss these things get educated. your point is awful because section 8 housing isn't something people want to live in. It is also not food stamps, nor is it even under the same budgetary system. you could kill off SNAP and never touch the HUD funding. You could get rid of both of those and miss Social Security disability.
 
There are multiple welfare programs people work like a champ. SSI is the final solution and no it is not that hard to get on mental disability. That you think a system can be designed for all times without adapting to a changing society speaks volumes to why the whole thing should be rethought.

now you are talking about a system that needs to toss some people from it's roles. Social security disability is a joke that needs huge reform. But it is still not food stamps. However, it is interesting that SSD will take into account that you need it to pay for food and increase your benefits if you say you need them for food purchases, while it also allows you to take SNAP benefits to pay for your food. It is limiting things like that which would save a lot of money, and make certain systems like disability much more annoying to deal with.
 
yes, but an educated person would know HUD is much different from the DHS or DSS department. There are alot of different types of social assistance programs. SNAP is not TANF which is not Section 8 housing, which is not disability or social security, and none of those are things like tuition assistance or corporate welfare. I don't mind the idea of increasing the efficiency of social welfare programs, and cutting otu abuses. however, to get an accurate idea of how to do that you have to be educated on what systems are out there and how they work. part of the problem with the welfare discussion in america is that there is more misinformation in it than there is about drugs. That is a deliberate thing created by both dems and republicans for different reasons. SNAp is relatively easy to get if you fall below the right income levels. It also does not give out cash benefits, and is limited per person to a max of 2400 a year in food. if you are working for less than 20k a year that is important. If you are going to discuss these things get educated. your point is awful because section 8 housing isn't something people want to live in. It is also not food stamps, nor is it even under the same budgetary system. you could kill off SNAP and never touch the HUD funding. You could get rid of both of those and miss Social Security disability.

Then perhaps you should educate yourself--not all Section 8 housing is government housing projects. One can rent freestanding homes where the landlord agrees to put the homes into the system and the homes meet certain requirements--like not being falling down slum houses with broken windows and no heat. Some landlords accept this and some do not. Donald Trump could put his penthouses into the system if he is willing to accept the rent controls and give up the ability to screen applicants :2wave:

How to Become a Section 8 Housing Landlord - Requirements, Pros & Cons
 
Then perhaps you should educate yourself--not all Section 8 housing is government housing projects. One can rent freestanding homes where the landlord agrees to put the homes into the system and the homes meet certain requirements--like not being falling down slum houses with broken windows and no heat. Some landlords accept this and some do not. Donald Trump could put his penthouses into the system if he is willing to accept the rent controls and give up the ability to screen applicants :2wave:

How to Become a Section 8 Housing Landlord - Requirements, Pros & Cons

yes, no landlord in a decent area would restrict themselves like that. They make it that way so the only areas where section 8 becomes appealing to landlords is in areas where people are too poor to pay the rent so the government kicks in the extra dollars. It still does not change the reality that the HUD system is not within the systems one would cut if they cut welfare. You could kill off social security and the DSS or DHS and you would still never touch section 8 housing. Real reform comes with specific systems, and just saying welfare does not tell a person anything. Do you know that when Bill Clinton signed the work for welfare thing and limited time on TANF that those limits don't apply to children receiving benefits? That is why it can still be abused by people who have multiple kids for benefits. We don't cut off the kids, we only cut off the parent. Since you need dependent children to get it in the first place we missed the biggest part of the abuse. You are also probably not aware those limits do not effect SNAP?

This is what i am talking about. you cannot read some little article that tries to back it's partisan opinion and become educated on where the abuses are. With the people in our government trying really hard to push money into their friend's hands you miss where the true problems are. It is not always with the poor, many times problems come from the rich skimming off programs for the poor. The rich want the loopholes, the politicians are their tools, and the media obscures the holes and blames someone else so you never know if your only opinion comes from their people and not from your own research.
 
yes, no landlord in a decent area would restrict themselves like that. They make it that way so the only areas where section 8 becomes appealing to landlords is in areas where people are too poor to pay the rent so the government kicks in the extra dollars. It still does not change the reality that the HUD system is not within the systems one would cut if they cut welfare. You could kill off social security and the DSS or DHS and you would still never touch section 8 housing. Real reform comes with specific systems, and just saying welfare does not tell a person anything. Do you know that when Bill Clinton signed the work for welfare thing and limited time on TANF that those limits don't apply to children receiving benefits? That is why it can still be abused by people who have multiple kids for benefits. We don't cut off the kids, we only cut off the parent. Since you need dependent children to get it in the first place we missed the biggest part of the abuse. You are also probably not aware those limits do not effect SNAP?

This is what i am talking about. you cannot read some little article that tries to back it's partisan opinion and become educated on where the abuses are. With the people in our government trying really hard to push money into their friend's hands you miss where the true problems are. It is not always with the poor, many times problems come from the rich skimming off programs for the poor. The rich want the loopholes, the politicians are their tools, and the media obscures the holes and blames someone else so you never know if your only opinion comes from their people and not from your own research.

No what you are doing is begging the argument to avoid admitting you were absolutely unarguably wrong about Section 8, and were being snotty about it to boot. There are multiple landlords in my area who put decent rental housing into the Section 8 program because they do not want to have to deal with finding tenants or have disruptions to their rental income. They are a great way for the working poor to get into a decent neighborhood even if they have to pay part of the rent out of their own pocket depending on where they fit on the sliding scale.

Once you actually educate yourself, we can continue the conversation......
 
No what you are doing is begging the argument to avoid admitting you were absolutely unarguably wrong about Section 8, and were being snotty about it to boot.

First off, you changed off of food stamps to section 8. I know the systems are different. So don't whine about me following your poor argument and beating it with a stick. landlords with valuable property do not change their rentals to section 8 because it is bad for them and their profits. plus it makes it harder to evict someone, change rent with demand, and to screen tenants. Just because the government makes it allowable for you to screw over your rental property by making it section 8 does not mean anyone in a decent area is going to do it. They do add what can be considered penalties to make sure landlords in good areas are not opening up their rentals to the poor. Is it possible to do? Yes, it it something anyone outside of a depressed area would do? Not unless they are an idiot. But if it is so good for you, then why don't you get out there and buy some non section 8 housing and convert it?

There are multiple landlords in my area who put decent rental housing into the Section 8 program because they do not want to have to deal with finding tenants or have disruptions to their rental income. They are a great way for the working poor to get into a decent neighborhood even if they have to pay part of the rent out of their own pocket depending on where they fit on the sliding scale.

The places i have lived would pitch a fit if a property was rented in their neighborhood under section 8. Not to mention doing such a thing with a property in a HOA protected area would be cause for them to sell your house for you. Like you just said, section 8 is used for properties with high turnover for renters to keep consistent income by putting people who are unable to move easy in their properties. you own argument supports my claims because good properties rent well and don't need to rely on such things.
Once you actually educate yourself, we can continue the conversation......

Oh, i am sure you will continue no matter what. I do find it surprising you are defending a welfare program designed to keep landlords of depressed area from going broke by sucking off taxpayers. I think they call that corporate welfare. Section 8 is a lovely way to have the government subsidize your property in a crappy area while keeping the poor in those areas. It is weldfare for the rich and the poor, and it needs to be reformed.
 
There are multiple welfare programs people work like a champ.
TANF is the big one, and it's got a time limit. So do unemployment benefits.

If your income is very low, you might get some benefits like housing subsidies and Medicaid. But no one is getting rich off of public assistance.


SSI is the final solution and no it is not that hard to get on mental disability.
Actually, only 1/3 of applicants receive benefits; of those turned down, only 10% are approved.


That you think a system can be designed for all times without adapting to a changing society speaks volumes to why the whole thing should be rethought.
Re-read my post.

I did not say "we should not make any changes at all," I explicitly allowed room for improvement. My point is that many of these programs are already designed with time limits, so throwing everything out doesn't make sense.
 
On a side note, I've seen some Section 8 housing which is not that bad. Public housing gets a bad rap, but isn't always terrible either.

However, there are no slots open for Section 8 in NYC -- not even on the waiting list, unless you qualify as an "emergency" candidate.

More to the point, you'd need to do an in-depth analysis to determine if it is somehow a disincentive to work. Merely declaring that "it's a benefit, therefore it's a disincentive" with zero research is, well, a bit facile.

And if we did find that some aspects discouraged work or income growth, rather than toss the entire program out, it can be adjusted to address the issue.
 
No doubt, Like Obama's $90 million to Hamas in 2009.



I agree, but tell me what you think that would do to the cost of food in this day and age?



Again I agree, I don't think you'll find one conservative that believes that bailing out GM or the banks was a wise thing to do. As for donors, that was the stimulus I believe...Much of that was questionable as to the legality of it, but with a politicized AG, nothing happens.... Precedents are set. Thanks Progressives.



Yes, and instead we are flushing 10 times the amounts down the drain on so called 'green energy' as payoffs to Obama supporters so that their company goes belly up a year later.


I wonder just what ending agricultural subsides would do to the cost of food in the long run? No doubt, it would increase to cost to the consumer, at least in the short run, as the consumer would be paying the full cost with the government not paying anything, or at least not as much.

Ending food stamps would place a huge burden on poor families, at least in the short term also, but there are much less expensive ways to help out than via food stamps. Government warehouses for example, could be stocked with surplus commodities in order to both even out price spikes and declines, and provide a source of food for the poor.
 
I wonder just what ending agricultural subsides would do to the cost of food in the long run? No doubt, it would increase to cost to the consumer, at least in the short run, as the consumer would be paying the full cost with the government not paying anything, or at least not as much.

Ending food stamps would place a huge burden on poor families, at least in the short term also, but there are much less expensive ways to help out than via food stamps. Government warehouses for example, could be stocked with surplus commodities in order to both even out price spikes and declines, and provide a source of food for the poor.

Isn't that just the same subsidy shifted in its appearance? What's the difference?
 
Isn't that just the same subsidy shifted in its appearance? What's the difference?

No junk food would be available, no luxuries, just basic commodities. It would be a lot less expensive for the taxpayer, and provide more nutritious food for the children of the poor.

It would be a compromise between the current giveaways and just ignoring the needs of the poor.
 
No junk food would be available, no luxuries, just basic commodities. It would be a lot less expensive for the taxpayer, and provide more nutritious food for the children of the poor.

It would be a compromise between the current giveaways and just ignoring the needs of the poor.

So, it's not subsidies in general that you disagree with, but rather just those subsidies that you would like to change.
 
So, it's not subsidies in general that you disagree with, but rather just those subsidies that you would like to change.

Not so much change, as eliminate as many as possible.
Another, perhaps even better alternative, would be to leave feeding the poor to churches and other private charities. They could no doubt do the job more efficiently than the federal government can.

That way, we could eliminate that subsidy altogether.

Agricultural cooperatives could work to even out the spikes of supply and demand, too, leaving the federal government out of it altogether.
 
This post wins.

The funny thing is that I can picture millions saying this with a straight face.

Go to New York you will hear it sometimes.

My adoptive mother screamed out what I said out in public and pissed off some people even though she was joking
 
Mr. nick is completely wrong and has claimed something absurd that is easily debunked through some very simple means. This is the IL DHS site which defines the benefit levels a household can receive. The second chart on the page shows the decreasing benefit levels as you add more people to the household. however, you do get more benefits for each person. As one can see, the brady bunch would only get 1500 dollars a month if they included Alice and Oliver. that is 10 people for the kids to young to know what the brady bunch was. That is not even close to 1200 a week.

DHS: SNAP Program - DHS 124

So even the duggars wouldn't get 1200 dollars a week in food stamps. 1200 dollars a week totals 4800 dollars a month. You would need to claim over 30 people in your household to get 1200 dollars a week in food benefits. Perhaps mr. nick has just been poorly informed by a deceptive lying news source, but your friendly neighborhood me is happy to easily go to the IL DHS site and follow the easy to find link to the food benefits you can expect from SNAP. Now please step away until; you can offer up something close to the truth, and discuss this issue with some intelligence instead of spreading some absurdity that people are getting 1200 dollars a week in food. If that were even close to true i would agree with you, but just because you said it or heard it on fox news does not make it so. Oh, and if you are bothered because this post made you feel a little silly then perhaps you should check your so called facts before you make yourself look silly by making absurd and easily disproven claims.

You're absolutely wrong...

Do you know the difference between welfare and food stamps?

In Illinois they (taxpayers via government) will pay per kid on welfare up to a certain point (cap) which is $1,200 in disposable money (cash). THEN they get the WIC card (foods stamp card) on top of that which has no per kid limit..
 
You believed 1200 dollars a week? That did not set off alarms in your head? Your problem is you are ignorant of the system, and you rely on the opinions of people qwho are clearly manipulating you with the wrong information because you actually want to believe their insanity.

I was talking about welfare - not the food stamps..

I clearly said welfare in my original post.

I mean you do realize the government just doles out free taxpayer money to the alleged "poor" do you not?

A woman with 8 kids and no working income living in the projects will receive around 40k a year cash money and that is AFTER housing vouchers, food stamps and no bills.
 
Not so much change, as eliminate as many as possible.
Another, perhaps even better alternative, would be to leave feeding the poor to churches and other private charities. They could no doubt do the job more efficiently than the federal government can.

That way, we could eliminate that subsidy altogether.

Agricultural cooperatives could work to even out the spikes of supply and demand, too, leaving the federal government out of it altogether.


On that point we are in full agreement.
 
Drr why are there more poor people in a recession?
 
Economies are cyclical.

not really.... they are made cyclical because of the imperfect market and greed. Markets go up and down due to rumors and manipulation because the markets are imperfect.. and it has been so forever. In the 1700s and 1800s market were much worse than now, with big booms and massive crashes.. all because of greed and manipulation.
 
not really.... they are made cyclical because of the imperfect market and greed. Markets go up and down due to rumors and manipulation because the markets are imperfect.. and it has been so forever. In the 1700s and 1800s market were much worse than now, with big booms and massive crashes.. all because of greed and manipulation.

So economies are cyclical.
 
Since the alternative to a living wage is a dying wage, we can see immediately where the right comes from on this. In a crashed economy where there are no jobs, or at least far fewer jobs than workers, then without welfare those having no work, starve.

This is a false analogy since the term "living wage" is an invented one and doesn't really mean a surviving wage but a minimal lifestyle with a few niceties. With respect to the OP food stamps should be restricted to those who are in danger of slipping below the point of survival. They should only include foods which have nutritional value and not junk food. Also to lower cost of food we can stop subsidizing the production of ethanol for transportation reduce the sugar tariff and convert some of the production for corn syrup to more food production.
 
What a failure progressive policy is....



Just remember who to blame when this all collapses....

The rich be getting richer, the poor becoming poorer is all.
 
Back
Top Bottom